
Cleaner pick · Safest cleansing we have rated
Africology Skincare & Spa
Bio Therapy Conditioner+51 on ingredient safety, gives up 14 on packaging
250ml · 47.50 ZAR · 19 ZAR/100 ml
Ranked by safety only. Greenlens earns from qualifying purchases. Payout never affects a rating, a ranking, or the cleaner pick.
Raters split
Ingredient safety
A 69-point gap between the two loudest voices.
All 7993 cleaner options, safest first We show the best 12, including the strongest on each axis.
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
A government authority. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Also screened, nothing found: ECHA SVHC Candidate List · California Proposition 65 · IARC Monographs · US NTP Report on Carcinogens
US EPA Safer Choice (SCIL) recognizes 52% of ingredients as safer choices — a marker, never a score.
Also screened, nothing found: EU Microplastics Restriction
Independent — not funded by the brands it rates. Auto-linked to this product, not yet human-reviewed. Checked this week. about this rater →
Coverage & match quality
7 ratings · 2 of 4 axes
Tune your weights
composite recomputes live
+No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
No rater covers this axis for this product, so its weight can't move the score.
What we know about the packaging
Unidentified0 of 1 identified
Nobody recorded what this pack is actually made of beyond “plastic”, so the packaging score is a stand-in for the middle of that range — not a reading of this container.
This says how precisely the packaging is described, not how good it is — a fully identified material can still be a bad one.
How we know the packaging
Nobody published the material for this product, so it was read from the product photo — the container looks like this, rather than the maker saying so. Treat the packaging score as weaker here than on a product with a declared material.
A photo also cannot show the resin code moulded into the base, so every plastic container reads as “plastic, unspecified” — the cautious end of the plastics range, not a finding about this particular pack.
Data availability
Robust21 of 21 characterized
Our sources have reference data on all 21 listed ingredients.
Worth a look (7)
Carcinogen-linkedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
ANSES endocrine candidateflagged by 3 of 9 lists →
Strong contact sensitizerflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Undisclosed fragrance blendflagged by 2 of 9 lists →
EU-restricted (with limits)flagged by 2 of 9 lists →
Health Canada Hotlist — restrictedflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
Mild sensitizer for someflagged by 1 of 9 lists →
No flags in our sources (14)
Where this came from
Product identity (name, brand, category) verified against ebay.com.au ↗
Researched facts on Greenlens always carry the page that stated them — nothing is inferred from a model's memory.